John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, a question. Mr. Speaker, this is the budget resolution that the Budget Committee passed out yesterday. It provides $205 billion less than the President requested. It is essentially flat from 2004 to 2009, the very period and years when this system will be purchased and deployed. How can we pay for it with a cut like that?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, we should not be asked to vote on this ill- timed resolution, asked to sign a blank check for this deployment; and were it not for the consequences, I would not vote for it, certainly not in the form it comes to us. But if at this critical point, we vote down this resolution, the winner will be Slobodan Milosevic. He will read our action as his warrant to act with impunity, to stonewall the peace negotiators and move with vicious aggression against Kosovo. The best we can make of the choices before us is to vote for the Gejdenson- Turner Amendment, and make this resolution turn on the achievement of a genuine peace agreement. I would gladly vote for more conditions, for conditions like those proposed by Mr. cox and Mr. Nethercutt in the amendments they filed in the record. At the very least, before we send ground troops, we should know: are they peace-keepers or peace-makers? The words sound similar, but the missions differ dramatically. I am opposed to sending ground troops to be peace-makers. But if a durable agreement is reached, I can support, reluctantly, the deployment of our troops as peace-keepers. I say ``reluctantly'' because if there were a reasonable division of labor between us and our European allies, they would take on this mission. We have at least made the minor precedent of committing only 4,000 troops out of a force of 28,000. Like everyone in this House, I would prefer to send none. I would prefer not to put any of our young men and women in harm's way. But we have learned that if the United States wants things to happen, we have to lead; and if we want to be the leader among our allies, we have to participate. As Senator Dole told us yesterday, if we want to remain the ``leader of NATO,'' the ``United States cannot ignore serious threats to stability in Europe.'' I think the U.S. should remain the leader of NATO, and I will, therefore, vote for this resolution, as amended by Gejdenson and others.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the Winthrop Eagles--the men's basketball team at Winthrop University, located in my district in Rock Hill, South Carolina. For the first time in the program's 20-year history, the team has won not only the regular season championship, but the Big South Conference Tournament as well, and will go on to compete in the NCAA tournament. The Eagles racked up 12 wins in a row--the longest winning streak in the history of the university and the conference. Nine were against Big South teams, the most Winthrop has ever had. It is no wonder the Eagles were the top seed in the Big South Conference Tournament, and no wonder that Coach Gregg Marshall, in his first year, was named the Big South Conference men's basketball coach of the year. This is a sports success story I wanted to share with the House. Congratulations on a job well done are due all of the Eagles, Coach Gregg Marshall and his fine staff, and everyone who helped make this a real win for Winthrop.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic rules which will be offered on the motion to recommit and against the Republican rules for many reasons, but 2 in particular which affect the budget. First, let me give everyone in this House a reason to vote for the motion to recommit if we are for saving Social Security. Our rules will make it out of order in this House to consider any bill or any amendment that would make any use of the budget surplus that stems from the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund for anything other than Social Security. We even go a step further. We say that no budget surplus of any kind can be used for anything until Social Security is in actuarial bonds for 75 years. So if we truly want to take Social Security off budget and protect it, save it first, then we should vote for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I also have to say with concern that the rules proposed by the majority will amend rule XXVIII and give the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget the unilateral power to set budget totals and committee spending allocations for fiscal years 1999 through 2003. This is a sweeping grant of authority, and I can only infer, because no one has explained it to me or consulted me about it, that the reason we are taking this extraordinary step is that last year, for the first time in 24 years, this House, this Congress failed to pass a concurrent budget resolution. This rule change would allow the House in effect to pretend that we passed that resolution even though we really did not. This raises an important question, this phantom resolution. What are the spending and revenue levels going to be? Are they the levels that were in the House-passed resolution which the Senate, the other body would not agree to? Are they the caps in the balanced budget agreement of 1997? Are we abandoning the BBA? Are we going to require the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Transportation and the Committee on Commerce to cut $56 billion? This is not necessary, it is not wise, and it is not unprecedented. Every member has 2 good reasons to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last night, after making a statement on the floor, I filed for extension of my remarks a longer statement, which I prepared as I reviewed the committee report on H. Res. 611. I have rewritten the last page of my longer statement, and file it as an amendment to my extended remarks: The majority argues that articles of impeachment are required by the rule of law. The rule of law starts at the source, with the Constitution and specifically Article II, Section IV. How the Congress removes a President elected by the people is vitally important to the rule of law in a democracy. The Frames of our Constitution did not choose a prime minister beholder to a parliament, but a president independent of Congress, so that each could counter the other and maintain a balance of power. Having made that fundamental decision, they did not intend for the impeachment power to be used as a vote of no confidence, so that the president serves, in effect, at the will of Congress. They knew that in extreme cases the power to impeach might be needed, so that Congress could rid the country of a president who took bribes or became a traitor or tyrant. For 210 years, Congress has regarded the impeachment power in that light, as extraordinary, and abused it only once, in the case of Andrew Johnson. In this case, the decision is not easy. President Clinton has disgraced himself; his conduct has been sordid; but his conduct does not amount, in my opinion, to a ``high crime'' like bribery or treason. Not for his sake, but for the sake of the presidency, we should not ``define down'' the grounds of impeachment. We have an alternative. We can rebuke this president and leave a stain on his legacy forever, without leaving a precedent for impeachment we may live to regret. I think censure is the choice we should make.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to defend the President's conduct. It was wrong, and months of deceit only made it worse. But that still leaves the question, was the conduct of such enormity that it can be compared to bribery or treason? I followed the hearings. I read the report last night. I have listened to the debate today. I do not think this case meets constitutional requirements. I come down on the side of President Ford and Senator Dole. I think President Clinton should be censored, censored severely, and the censure should be imposed right here in the well of the House. The President should be called to this spot and our rebuke read to him before the Congress, the cabinet and the whole country. So given the chance, I will vote to censure but not to impeach, not to inflict a remedy that has been invoked only twice in 210 years and used only once to remove a President. The majority argues that articles of impeachment are the proper form of censure. The problem is that a resolution of impeachment in the House requires a trial of impeachment in the Senate. And it could be a pointless trial, as the majority well knows, because there is little chance today that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to convict. So what do we have? We have a country bitterly divided on this issue. But let me tell you, I think everybody will agree with this, there is no clamor in the country to have this evidence replayed again, to see an instant replay of this trial. The people of this country want it over. The right way to get it over is to have a severe rebuke of the President, to bring him here, censure him in such a way that it will stain his legacy forever, but not leave a stain, not leave a precedent that will weaken future presidents or a precedent for Article II section 4 that will be unprecedented in history. That is the right action to take, and I urge this House to take it. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to defend the President's conduct. I think his conduct was wrong, and months of deceit only made it worse. But that leaves the question: was his conduct impeachable? I have followed the hearings and read the report, and I come down on the side of President Ford and Senator Dole: I think President Clinton should be severely censured; and the censure should be imposed here in the well of the House. The President should be called to this spot, and our rebuke read to him before the Congress, the cabinet, and the whole country. Given the chance, I will vote to censure, but not to impeach, not to inflict a remedy so extreme that it has been invoked only twice in 210 years, and used only once to remove a president. The majority argues that Articles of Impeachment are the best form of censure. The problem with their argument is that a resolution of impeachment in the House requires a trial of impeachment in the Senate. And it could be a pointless trial, as the majority well knows, because there is little chance that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to convict. We could vote today, right now, on censure; pass it by a wide margin and carry it out. But the majority would have a trial, and have this cloud hang over the next Congress, as it has this Congress. The President's conduct was reprehensible, but the Constitution requires more than reprehensible conduct before 67 members of the Senate can remove a President elected by 60 million people. To impeach, the Constitution requires in Article II, Section IV that Congress must find ``Bribery, Treason, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' These words are so open-ended that some say the question comes down to political judgment, and in a way, it does. Congress has room to decide what are ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' But the language of the Constitution does have meaning, and we are obliged to follow it. The first drafts of the Constitution gave only bribery and treason as grounds of impeachment. George Mason moved to add ``maladministration.'' James Madison argued that ``So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' George Mason, therefore, withdrew ``maladministration'' and substituted ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors .'' In the 65th Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton explained what they had in mind: ``offenses which proceed . . . from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . [relating] chiefly to injuries done to society itself.'' When the framers put powers to impeach in the Constitution, they wanted to protect us from ``great and dangerous'' abuses, offenses that a president might commit against the state. In 1974, when the House Judiciary Committee was faced with a slate of charges against President Nixon, it approved, on a bi-partisan vote, a rule of substantiality: ``Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further requirement--substantiality . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the Presidential office.'' Almost all of the charges against the President stem from his testimony in a deposition, taken in a suit brought by Paula Corbin Jones. I do not think the President told the whole truth in that deposition. He took refuge in a tortured definition of ``sexual relations'' and when pressed for detail, he dodged, dissembled, and evaded. He said, for example, that he was never ``alone'' with Monica Lewinsky. His testimony was deplorable, and he deserves rebuke. But I am not convinced that an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for this same sort of testimony for several reasons. First come the arguments put forth by the President's lawyers: that the President exploited an odd definition of sexual relations approved by the judge; that the questions asked of him were ``vaguely framed;'' and that his answers were evasive, incomplete, and even ``maddening,'' but not false. I am not satisfied with these defenses, but they might be enough to fend off prosecution. Next comes the law of perjury. Lying under oath becomes perjury and a crime if it is ``material'' to the suit in which the testimony is given. In the case brought by Paula Corbin Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright held that the evidence relating to Monica Lewinsky was ``not essential to the core issues in this case.'' When Judge Wright granted summary judgment and dismissed the suit, she said, ``Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury.'' As the Minority Report points out, ``When Judge Wright ruled on April 1 that no matter what the President did with Ms. Lewinsky, Paula Jones herself had not proved that she has been harmed, the court's opinion confirmed that the President's statements, whether truthful or not, were not of the grave constitutional significance necessary to support impeachment.'' Report of the Committee on Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 611, page 344. Finally, five former federal prosecutors told the committee that federal prosecutions for perjury in civil actions do occur but are not common because ``federal prosecutors do not use the criminal process in connection with civil litigation . . .'' Edward Dennis explained that ``prosecutors are justifiably concerned about the appearance the government is taking the side of one private party against another.'' William F. Weld, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, who ran the Criminal Division of the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, told the committee that in the Reagan Administration ``it was not the policy of the Justice Department to seek an indictment based solely on evidence that a defendant had falsely denied committing adultery or fornication.'' We cannot diminish the gravity of lying under oath, especially by our President. But before we impeach and remove him from office, we should note the subject of his testimony. It was about personal and not official conduct. In a law suit dismissed by summary judgment and later settled, it is not likely that an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for such testimony. I do not condone the President's evasive and dissembling answers, but I am reluctant to impeach him for an offense that would probably not cause an ordinary citizen to be prosecuted. If testimony in his deposition was not indictable, of course, the President should not have been called before the grand jury. But he was called, and according to the Independent Counsel, he perjured himself here in three respects: First, by stating that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky began in February 1996 rather than November 1995. To this, the President's counsel points out that the Independent Counsel gives no proof for his contention that the President avoided the earlier date because Ms. Lewinsky was then an intern and chose the later date because she was then an employee. Counsel argues that, in any event, no judge or jury would find such a discrepancy material. Second, by stating that he believed oral sex was not covered by the definition of ``sexual relations'' approved by Judge Wright when his deposition was taken. But the President admitted to the grand jury the key fact: he had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky. He continued to argue that ``oral sex'' was outside the judge's definition. His argument may be tenuous but it was an argument over semantics rather than facts. Third, by saying that he had not engaged in certain types of sexual conduct in order to keep his grand jury testimony consistent with his deposition. The President's sex with Monica Lewinsky probably was ``reciprocal.'' He probably did touch her in ways he did not admit. To this, the President's counsel raised one question for every member to ask: ``Am I prepared to impeach the President because, after having admitted he engaged in egregiously wrongful conduct, he falsely described the particulars of that conduct?'' Let's dismiss all of the above and assume that parts of the President's deposition were false and material to Paula Jones' suit. Two distinguished lawyers, Professor Van Alstyne of Duke Law School (called by the majority) and James Hamilton (called by the minority), testified that even so, these were ``low crimes,'' not the high crimes comparable to bribery and treason which the Constitution requires for impeachment. There are two remaining articles. One charges obstruction of justice, but in the words of Governor Weld, the case is ``thin.'' The President lied to the public and to his staff and cabinet, but the proof stops short of showing that he suborned them to lie. Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury that no one asked her to lie or promised her a job if she remained silent. The other article charges abuse of power. It may be the most troubling of the articles, because if passed, it could become a threatening precedent for future president who find themselves in disputes with Congress over their powers, prerogatives, and jurisdiction. The majority argues that articles of impeachment are required by the rule of law. But the rule of law starts at the source, with the Constitution, Article II, Section IV. How the Congress removes a President elected by the people is vitally important to our democracy. The framers of our Constitution did not choose a prime minister beholden to parliament, but a president independent of Congress, so that each could counter the other. Having made that decision, they did not intend for the impeachment power to be used so that the president serves, in effect, as the will of Congress. They knew that impeachment might be needed in extreme cases, so that Congress could remove a president who took bribes or became a traitor or tyrant. For 210 years, Congress has regarded the impeachment power in that light, as extraordinary, and abused it only once, in the case of Andrew Johnson. President Clinton deserves censure. But as sordid and disgraceful as his conduct has been, it does not rise, in my humble opinion, to a ``high crime'' like bribery or treason. Not just for his sake, but for sake of the presidency, we should not impeach on the facts before us. We have an option; we can rebuke this president and leave a black stain on his legacy, without risking the constitutional balance of power. That is why censure is the proper choice.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the military chiefs have brought their readiness problems to Congress, and the Secretary of Defense has brought his case for a bigger budget to the President. Here in Congress, we tend to see defense from a broad overview. We hear a lot about procurement cost overruns and too little about the men and women in uniform who work long hours, and through innovation and ingenuity, save their country millions of dollars. I visited Shaw Air Force Base in my district over the August break. After seeing some of the efficiencies that Air force personnel have put into practice at Shaw. I asked Colonel Daniel P. Leaf, Commander of the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw, to give me a letter detailing their cost avoidance initiatives. Here is how Colonel Leaf described the efficiencies and savings that his personnel at Shaw have implemented: ``In FY 97, the innovation and ingenuity of our folks led to cost avoidance and savings of over $3 million on 99 spare TF34-34-GE-100A engines. Our Regional Repair Center supports A-10 units at Pope AFB NC, Moody AFB GA, Eglin AFB FL, and Spangdahlem AB GE. NCOs suggested a change to erosion inspection criteria on TF34s engines. Once approved, that allowed us to reuse nine compressor rotors, $513,693 and 1,350 man-hours in FY97 alone. Other TF34 repair centers adopted this change and saved the taxpayers $684,924 and 1,800 man-hours. Our technicians came up with another high value initiative, recommending field replacement of high- pressure turbine blades in the field instead of sending the entire assembly back to depot. This change saved $45,300 per engine or $814,400 and 11,520 man-hours in FY97! These additional man-hours equate to more engines, more savings, and improved readiness. These and other changes to take us over $3,000,000 in savings represent the best of the American spirit. In FY98 we've avoided expenditures and saved a total of $1.6 million. Adding our engine savings up since FY94 comes to over $16 million--I am immensely proud of this team! ``We have had several other `airman-based' success stories I would like to share with you in a little less detail. As one of a few lead wings in the Air Force, we're converting all our F-16s from bias ply to radial tires. Radial tires provide 50 percent more landings, cutting man-hours and use of support equipment. The Corrosion Control Element identified a local source of Sherwin-Williams paint saving $3,500 annually. This paint requires less thinner, improves adhesion, and reduces hazardous organic compounds 60 percent. The troops also developed a process reducing the chromate exposure while preparing aircraft for paint reducing environmental impact and protecting our personnel. Our people took the initiative to establish a state-of-the-art cable repair operation for our F-16s and support equipment. This is only one in Air Combat Command (ACC), and has already realized over $20,000 in savings with an annual projection of $260,000. Our specialists researched F-16 wing braces believing the fracture criterion was too strict for minor nicks. Coordinating with engineers at depot, they approved our ideas, saving $19,000 and 780 man-hours on the spot. This is already having a major impact on repairing F-16s across the Air Force. We are now ordering all vehicle parts, directly cutting out the middleman and saving a projected $28,000 this year. Our Base Service Store on Shaw has now been contracted out to LC Industries, expanding service, equipment, and including hazardous materials. ``We are leading the Air Force in reengineering our processes in Transportation and Supply by combining similar functions and eliminating others. We will cut about 30 positions equating to about $1 million in annual personnel savings. To improve our processes, we are consolidating similar technologies into a Center of Technology concept. Consolidating maintenance, supply, and transportation processes will reduce the number of facilities used and relocate them closer to the customer on the flightline. In maintenance alone, we will reduce operating locations by five, decreasing supervisors' span of control, facility maintenance, and increasing productivity. ``All of the hard work, great ideas, and process improvements led to a number of awards. We won the ACC Supply Daedalian Award and placed second in the Air Force Oust behind Air Mobility Command's entry, Charlestown AFB. Transportation Squadron took command honors by winning the National Defense Transportation Award. The 78th Fighter Squardron won the ACC and Air Force maintenance effectiveness Award (Small Aircraft Category), while the Component Repair Squadron won the ACC Maintenance Effectiveness Award.''

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have long supported VA subvention, and I want to fix the home health care payment formula as much as anybody on the floor, although I am not sure this bill does much for home health care in my State. I am sure of this, it deals a body blow to the deficit. This bill adds $6.9 billion in new spending over the next 10 years, $6.9 billion. It cuts revenues, reduces tax revenues by $4.9 billion. So it takes a whack of nearly $12 billion out of the budget, out of the surplus over the next 12 years. Ironically, that is because the Roth IRA provision put in here as a ``pay for'' does save money over the first 5 years, $2.4 billion. But over the second 5 years, over the 10-year course of this bill, it loses nearly $5 billion, $4.9 billion. This is a shortsighted way to pay for the bill. We would be better off to drop the Roth provisions altogether. It would save us a $5 billion hit on the surplus, and we would only have a $7 billion reduction. It is not the way to go if we want to save the surplus for Social Security or protect the fiscal situation that we have worked so hard to get ourselves into.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to vote to help students go to college, and a vote for the conference report on the Higher Education Act Reauthorization is just that--a vote for students. This bill will lower interest rates on student loans, help disadvantaged middle school students prepare for college, improve preparation and training for teachers, and promote distance-learning through expanded student aid and partnership models that will reach more students. These provisions and others targeted at improving the efficiency and access of student aid programs will help make college affordable for more students, and make attending college a reality for more students. The bill has merit, but as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee I have to express my disappointment that Congress did not find a way to pay for these improvements. Because all costs are not offset according to the Office of Management and Budget, this bill will add to the PAYGO scorecard, expanding the sequester already in the cards for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 unless we take additional action before then. This bill is another example of Congress acting without a guiding budget resolution or plan. This is the first year since the Budget Act became law, a quarter century ago, that Congress has failed to pass a budget resolution conference agreement. The failure of this bill to contain offsets is partly a result of Congress's failure to do its job and pass a budget resolution. We want the benefits of improved public policies, but lack the fiscal discipline to pass a final Congressional Budget Resolution. The American public deserves a Congress that can deliver on our fiscal obligations, and the Republicans in this Congress are shirking that responsibility.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, in a week, just a week, the government will declare a budget surplus for the first time in 30 years. This is a landmark achievement, and in large measure it is the result of rigorous budget rules that Congress enacted in 1990, in 1993, and in 1997, which were followed consistently. Now, on the verge of the first surplus in 30 years, the House is about to throw budget discipline to the wind and dissipate the surplus before we have even declared it, even put it in our pockets and realized it. When we did the budget summit agreement with President Bush in 1990, we adopted something we call colloquially the pay-as-you-go rule. Congress extended that rule in 1993, we extended it again in 1997, because it has worked. It has been the foundation of our fiscal discipline, and it has been a major factor in bringing the budget to balance. Under that statutory rule, increases in entitlement spending or decreases in taxes have to be fully offset. If not offset, the initiatives have to be paid for. They are entered on a pay-go scorecard, and money is sequestered at the end of the fiscal year which otherwise would go to the farm program or Medicare or Medicaid, certain selected entitlement programs. We all know there is a unified budget surplus over the next 5 years, but we also know that when the surpluses in the social security trust funds are backed out, the budget is in deficit by $137 billion. If this rule is enacted and if H.R. 4579 is enacted, we will raise that deficit from $137 billion to $217 billion, and postpone the date when we are truly in surplus well beyond the year 2008. This is backpeddling. This is the first step down the slippery slope. When we are finally at the point of success, we are about to blow it. I support tax cuts. I find a lot of the provisions in this tax bill very appealing. But I think it is a mistake to dispense with our budget rules and the budget discipline that has brought us this far in order to pass this bill. The rule for H.R. 4579, everybody should note this, everybody should know it when they vote for it, has to bust the budget rules, has to break the budget rules and the discipline that we have established in four different ways for this bill to come to the floor. First of all, it has to amend the tax bill to provide the pay-as-you- go requirements, to override these pay-as-you-go requirements which are present, which this Congress reaffirmed and extended just last year. We have to override them altogether. It is buried here. It is the last paragraph in this thing. It says, ``Upon the enactment of this Act, the director of the Office of Management and Budget shall not make any estimates of the changes and receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of '85 resulting from the enactment of this Act.'' In other words, disregard fiscal reality. Secondly, we have to violate section 306 of the Budget Act, which says that only the Committee on the Budget, not the Committee on Rules, can change statutory budget rules like the pay-go rule. Thirdly, this rule waives section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, in effect because the tax bill cuts go well beyond the tax cuts that we explicitly agreed to in last year's budget agreement and implemented in the Tax Relief Act of 1997. Fourth, the rule must waive section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act, because it amends the revenue law before Congress has agreed to a budget resolution for this year. We do not have a budget resolution. We passed one in the House, the Senate passed one. We never even had a conference. The rules say that we cannot do this until we have adopted a budget resolution. This is a long list of violations which we will waive. They are serious, not trivial violations. I urge that we stick with the fiscal discipline that has brought us to this day on the verge of a surplus, and not throw budget discipline to the winds. Let us vote against this rule.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, there is a season for everything. There is a time to ratify START II, and that is now, immediately, as soon as we can get the Duma to do it. And then there is a time to ratify START III. It comes right on the heels of START II. And that should come immediately. It should come next after we have completed the work on START II. Once we do that we will have the warheads in each of our arsenals down to 2,000 to 3,000 strategic warheads each. At that point in time, it will be the season to take up the ABM Treaty and look at it, because in many ways it is a relic of the Cold War and it has outlived many of its purposes. But, for the time being, it is a symbol of stability. We pull the rug out from the ABM, the Standing Consultative Committee, we abruptly cut off funding, and that is a signal to the Russians that they better be careful and think twice about ratifying START II. And everything begins to become unraveled. There is nothing in these negotiations that gives rise to any immediate problems. We are trying to define the demarcation between strategic and theater weapons. In doing so, we have chosen to define the difference as being the planner in which the system, the interceptor, is tested. Is it tested against an incoming object that would be the speed of an RV coming from the exoatmosphere if launched by an ICBM, or is it traveling at the speed of a tactical or theater missile, a much lower speed? If it is tested only against the latter, then it is a theater defense system. If it is tested against an ICBM speed RV, then it is a strategic system. It is a practical distinction. I do not think it serves a great deal of purpose. But, for the time being, in order to maintain our relations with the Soviets, with the Russians, to stabilize them to try to get START II ratified and START III negotiated, it makes sense not to rattle their cage on the ABM Treaty. This is not the kind of diplomacy or legislation we need now. It is not necessary. The law is already on the books. And it is not going to impede one single thing if these demarcation rules were implemented by the President.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we all know why we are here and for whom the bells toll. When Jake Chestnut and John Gibson died, they died for all of us. And we live, we go on, we move freely about this Capitol because they did their duty, they did it without flinching, they did it at the price of their lives. They died for us, but they really died for something more. They died to keep this Capitol a place the people can come to and leave feeling this is their Capitol, the seat of their government. We pay a high price in dollars to keep this the most open Capitol in the world. On Friday we paid far more dearly. We lost the lives of two good men. It was not my privilege to know Mr. Gibson. I did know Mr. Chestnut. I knew the first minute I saw him, indeed sitting outside our conference committee room and noticed his name tag, that he was from South Carolina. He was professional from head to toe. He had a polished bearing about him, polished by 20 years in the Air Force. But beneath that polished bearing was a warm-hearted man. I know his family loved him because all of us who came in contact with him did. To their families we open our hearts. Officer Gibson died young, Officer Chestnut died before enjoying a well-earned retirement. But they raised the bar of duty, they left the country two shining examples of courage, and they helped make this Capitol the land of the free, the Capitol of the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct is about as straightforward as it can get. We are saying, simply, let us not cut funding for missile defense systems that could soon be able to provide protection for our troops and our deployments in tactical theater situations. Let us not take it out of these systems that show near-term promise and put it in something that is totally futuristic, space-based lasers, a technology that is literally decades away from being realized and tens of billions of dollars away from fruition. Ever since we lost 28 servicemen and women to one of Saddam's SCUDs 7 years ago, we have been pushing the development of theater missile defense, so-called TMD, theater missile defense systems, to protect our troops and our deployments from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Support for the TMD programs in the House has been consistent and has been bipartisan. The primary systems that we are developing cover the whole spectrum. There is a Navy Lower Tier, primarily to protect ships, and a Navy Upper Tier to protect the literal and 3 Army programs: the THAAD, the Theater High Altitude Air Defense System; the PAC-3; and the so-called MEAD-4 division level Army defense. The House provided this year a very modest increase, $120 million, to the President's request of $1.7 billion for TMD, theater missile defense, research. The President's request for Space Based Lasers was $94 million. On a bipartisan basis, after studying it carefully, the House took $20 million out of the so-called Space Based Laser and shifted it to the theater missile defense. We added it on to TMD. The other body takes these priorities and stands them on their head. It cuts THAAD, or cuts theater missile defense, by $237 million, 14 percent below President Clinton's request; and then it doubles the funding for the so-called Space Based Laser. This is not only unwise, it is reckless. We need to focus our efforts on fielding TMD systems. We spent tens of billions of dollars during the Reagan and Bush years in pursuit of Space Based Lasers, lasers of different kinds, ground based as well as space based. At one time we had 5 different laser systems which we were funding; two or three chemical laser systems, an excimer laser system, a free-electron laser system. They have all gone by the board. What we need is focus, as well as funding, and our troops need theater missile defense. The technology is very nearly within our grasp. It is near term, and we should not be cutting funding now when we have just about got this technology in grasp in order to put it into futuristic technologies that may not ever work. And even if they are deployable in space, they may be so enormous in outerspace that they are highly vulnerable to counterattack. Now, the primary reason that the other body came in below the President's, $237 million below the President's request, is to cut THAAD, the so-called Theater High Altitude Defense system, sharply. As most folks know, the THAAD has not made a good showing for itself. In testing, it is zero for five so far. So I am not here to defend the THAAD in its present status. I am here to say we need a system that fits that specification, we need a ground based system, we need something that has its reach and its range. And this approach to take this much out of that system is short-sighted and it misses an obvious point. Ballistic missile defense is rocket science. In fact, it is harder than rocket science, and the Pentagon and the Congress must be patient and we have got to expect setbacks. The Patriot, for example, started the concept development in 1968. It did not really come to final fruition and complete testing until the late 1980s. That is how long it took to bring the Patriot, and we far outstrip the need for a system like that. We have got to go further. THAAD proves that we cannot rush technology. We cannot legislate initial operational capability dates. We have got to be patient. We should not take development shortcuts, and we should test these programs rigorously, which we are doing with the THAAD. If we abandon every missile defense system, theater missile defense system in particular, that runs into technical problems and then take up another system instead, we will never field anything. Our committee worked in a very bipartisan way to fix the THAAD program. We did not simply give the money to the President as he requested, thanks in good part to my colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). He helped fashion this language that will put the feet of the contractor to the fire, install a new co-prime contractor, as it were, to look over the contractor's shoulder. We kept the top line for THAAD, but we placed the bulk of the funding in the so-called demonstration and validation account to help identify the flaws in the THAAD, to help make fixes to the THAAD and to provide additional tests to evaluate those fixes. We injected competition into the program, too, to make sure that the contractors got the best people working on the program; and if a contractor cannot do it, another contractor may have to be selected. We should insist on the House position on TMD because we have to stay the course on this system if we are going to protect our troops and our interests and our installations and our deployments abroad. It is my understanding that the Ballistic Missile Defense Office agrees with the position that we are taking here. Let me say something about the Space Based Laser. We are not zeroing it out. We will leave $74 million. In any other budget, that is big money, a reasonable level of money certainly to do exploratory research. Some in the other body say the Rumsfeld Commission shows the need to put more money into Space Based Lasers. Listen, the best it can really promise us with respect to the Space Based Laser is a demonstration test in the year 2008, and to fund it we have got to put up $3 billion to get from here to the year 2008. And that is not a system. That is just a demonstration test in space. We need something in place before the year 2008. If we want to believe that, if we want a prudent course, vote for this resolution in order to instruct our conferees to do what we are proposing to do, restore the THAAD and take the money out of the Space Based Laser.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an outstanding American, an outstanding soldier, and an outstanding officer of the U.S. Army on the occasion of his retirement from active service. Col. Jimmy O. Jacobs retires after more than 28 years of dedicated service to this great Nation. Throughout his service Colonel Jacobs has provided tremendous leadership, guidance and counsel at all levels, from unit to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He has consistently provided frank, thoughtful and deliberate advice to the high ranking Presidential appointees whom he has served both for the Office of the Secretary of the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Colonel Jacobs has over the years become recognized inside the Pentagon as the expert when an issue had to be worked quickly and correctly. His first and foremost concerns have always been what is best for soldiers, the U.S. Army, and our Nation. His brand of selfless service will stand for years to come as the standard for others to emulate. Colonel Jacobs' illustrious career that began in 1970 culminates as the Executive Officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters, Department of the Army. It is in this position that he has been able to directly influence the lives of our young soldiers and their families. For it is in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) where decisions are made affecting a soldier's wallet, housing assignment, points for promotion, and next assignment, among many others. Colonel Jacobs has been on hand to ensure that, when others might lose sight of that soldier on the ground, the correct decisions are made. He is the one who has ensured that the DCSPER hears those honest, frank opinions that he needs to hear before making life altering decisions. And on many occasions it was Colonel Jacobs himself providing those opinions. Colonel Jimmy Jacobs was born in Bennettsville, South Carolina and graduated from Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Colonel Jacobs was commissioned a second lieutenant through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program in 1969. The unfortunate and untimely loss of both parents while attending college prompted his request for a one-year deferment from active duty to ensure his two younger brothers graduated from high school. For that year he taught high school biology and coached football, reporting in 1970 to his first duty station in Cam Rahn Bay, Vietnam. After Vietnam, then Lieutenant Jacobs spent the following 10 years overseas serving selflessly in a wide variety of personnel positions at Headquarters, 6th U.S. Army, Europe, the Berlin Brigade, and the European Military Personnel Center. In 1981, the newly promoted Major Jacobs was assigned to Headquarters, 6th U.S. Army at the Presidio at San Francisco, to serve for three years in his functional area of public affairs. Following his assignment as Chief, Media Operations and Public Information, Major Jacobs was selected to attend Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Upon graduation he found himself being assigned once again to another overseas tour with the Military Personnel Center, Europe, in Schwetzingen, Germany. After serving as Chief Officer Assignments and the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations, the newly promoted Lieutenant Colonel Jacobs was reassigned to the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., in May 1988. For the next ten years, Lieutenant Colonel Jacobs served in alternating assignments between the Office, Secretary of Defense and the Office, Under Secretary of the Army as a Senior Military Assistant, Executive Officer, and Senior Military Deputy. During this period he was deservedly promoted to Colonel and subsequently assigned to his current position as the Executive Officer to the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for personnel. In all these assignments, Colonel Jacobs has served with distinction and has earned our respect and gratitude for his many years of unselfish service to our Nation's defense. It is with great pride that I congratulate Colonel Jacobs upon his retirement and wish him and his wife, Deborah, all the best as they move on to face new challenges and rewards in the next exciting chapter of their lives. I ask my colleagues to join me in heartfelt appreciation to a soldier whose selfless service has truly made a difference.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. But we cannot deal with anything until we have a conference. We do not even have one established.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield before he goes back to his office?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRATT. Could I just ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, in 1985, did the deeming resolution raise the allocation above that which the House had just approved 2 weeks before? This is $1.4 billion more than the whole House approved.